Observation and Analysis of Affinity Law Deviations through Tested Performance of Liquefied Gas Reaction Turbines

Liquefied gas reaction turbines are subject to the hydraulic affinity laws. Particularly for liquefied hydrocarbon gas-driven turbines, deviations from the affinity laws are encountered. In the case of reaction turbines, where the geometry is fixed, the affinity law relationships between flow, head, and rotational speed are relevant. Field experience confirms that the affinity law relationships are adequate, but that the predictions made also tend to deviate from real turbine performance. Part of the deviations seen may be attributed to the nonideal fluid; however, further examination is warranted. This paper presents an investigation into the affinity law relationships between head, flow, and rotational speed in conjunction with actual turbine performance. The three basic affinity law relationships are combined to form the most general performance equation. This equation subsequently incorporates both the affinity law relationships and the conservation of energy principal. Application of real turbine test data shows that this general performance equation presents a more accurate representation of turbine performance than the affinity law relationships alone

The great European Cup-Tie final, East Surreys v Bavarians, kick off at zero, NO REFEREE!

The image of British troops advancing into battle kicking a football is part of Britain’s First World War collective memory. However, research suggests that this happened only twice, with the better-known event being on the opening day of the Battle of the Somme when ‘B’ Company of the 8 Battalion of the East Surrey Regiment kicked two footballs ahead of them. The East Surreys were one of the few battalions to reach their objective. However on this bloodiest day in the history of the British Army, the football charge is but a footnote to military historians despite becoming a national ‘micro-level’ myth. This paper, researched in an antiquarian spirit, is concerned with the recovery of the empirical detail of the event motivated by a desire to discover the objective reality of the collective memory and explore the underlying rationale of this football charge

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (4th edition)

In 2008, we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, this topic has received increasing attention, and many scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Thus, it is important to formulate on a regular basis updated guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Despite numerous reviews, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to evaluate autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. Here, we present a set of guidelines for investigators to select and interpret methods to examine autophagy and related processes, and for reviewers to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of reports that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a dogmatic set of rules, because the appropriateness of any assay largely depends on the question being asked and the system being used. Moreover, no individual assay is perfect for every situation, calling for the use of multiple techniques to properly monitor autophagy in each experimental setting. Finally, several core components of the autophagy machinery have been implicated in distinct autophagic processes (canonical and noncanonical autophagy), implying that genetic approaches to block autophagy should rely on targeting two or more autophagy-related genes that ideally participate in distinct steps of the pathway. Along similar lines, because multiple proteins involved in autophagy also regulate other cellular pathways including apoptosis, not all of them can be used as a specific marker for bona fide autophagic responses. Here, we critically discuss current methods of assessing autophagy and the information they can, or cannot, provide. Our ultimate goal is to encourage intellectual and technical innovation in the field